E-mail a friendMichael Chertoff
original airdate June 12, 2007
A rabbi's son from Northern New Jersey, Michael Chertoff became the second Secretary of the newly created Department of Homeland Security in February 2005. Chertoff has been President Bush's point person on the recent immigration reform bill before Congress. He formerly served as a U.S. Circuit Judge and as Assistant Attorney General. He also served as Special Counsel for the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee.
Michael Chertoff
Tavis: Michael Chertoff is the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, only the second person to hold this relatively new Cabinet-level position.Prior to his current post, he served, of course, as a U.S. circuit court judge, and as an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department following, of course, 9/11.He joins us tonight from Washington.Mr. Secretary, nice to have you on the program.
Michael Chertoff: Good to be on the show.
Tavis: Let me start by asking the obvious question where immigration reform is concerned:what happened?
Chertoff: I think what happened is that they ran out of time last week.There were some additional amendments that had to be addressed in terms of scheduling.There also was a desire, I think, on the part of the majority leader to move on to some other business. But I think the bill is very much alive, and as long as the senators take advantage of the opportunity this week to focus on the remaining amendments that have to be addressed, I anticipate that the majority leader will take the matter up in the very, very near future.
Tavis: Obviously there are always two sides to every issue.My conservative friends who are watching this program right now would say with all due respect to the secretary, he has it all wrong.It had nothing to do with running out of time; it had to do with a conservative movement that ballooned last week on talk radio and all across the country, on the blogosphere, in opposition to this.And indeed, those persons who elected your boss almost eight years ago now decided they did not want this passed, and their voices are what stopped this dead in its tracks.Do you disagree with that?
Chertoff: Well I have to say, I think the view of a certain significant number of people, that they don't want a bill, has been made known for quite some time.I don't think that was a surprise to anybody.If you actually look at the votes that were taken, the bill did very well.It resisted virtually every effort to strike at the core of what we call the grand bargain.
I do think that what happened was a desire to make sure that people who had objections were given an opportunity to make their objections known and to propose amendments.And the time to do that was just not there this past week.So I would say to my friends on the other side of this issue that I do think we're going to get the bill back up.I think they'll have a fair opportunity to raise their amendments, but within a reasonable time frame.And then I think the Senate will go on and pass the bill.
Tavis: What do you make of, what does your boss, President Bush, make of the conservative opposition to this measure, this reform bill, in the heartland?Because clearly, he can't ignore that.
Chertoff: I think first of all those who have had the opportunity to get acquainted with the bill recognize that even from a conservative standpoint, there's an awful lot to like about the bill.It's tough on border security, for the first time it creates a real opportunity to have mandatory employment verification.These are steps that give us an ability to enforce the law that we've never had before.
That's a big plus for conservatives.I know some people are concerned about the fact that the 12 million people who are here illegally are given a way to regularize their status.They have to pay fines, they have to be on probation, but they're not simply deported from the country.
And I think that's really a practical recognition of the reality that it would be impossible to deport 12 million people, and that what we want to be focusing on from the Homeland Security standpoint is not the economic migrant who is here to do landscaping or wash dishes, but the terrorist and the criminal who is hiding among the economic migrants who are the real focus of our concern.
Tavis: Is there any evidence to suggest that that, in fact, is what should frighten us as Americans?As I see it, or at least as I follow the story, that has not been the case.No one has done any damage killing Americans coming to this country through Mexico.They've come from everywhere but these countries.
Chertoff: Tavis, we have - I'm not talking about terrorists here, I'm talking about just drug dealers and criminals who do an awful lot of damage to this country.And the problem is when I have border patrol agents or ICE investigators chasing down landscapers and housekeepers, they're not spending their time chasing down criminals and drug dealers.
And I think most Americans - and I put conservatives in this category, too - recognize that the big threat here is from people who are here to do us harm, not those who are merely here to do our work.
Tavis: All right, so the president's on Capitol Hill lobbying to get this reform measure passed, given what happened, to your point earlier, in the Senate last week.What's he saying, or put another way, I suspect it's not just about what he's saying, but there's going to have to be some compromise here to get this thing passed, perhaps.So what's he compromising on, if not just saying?
Chertoff: As I say, there's been - part of this grand bargain, which has been a compromise, it's been a recognition that we're going to have to create a way to regularize the 12 million, we're going to have to have a temporary worker program.I don't think the program the Senate voted on is ideal from our standpoint, but at least it gets us in the game.
And of course things we want like border enforcement and employment verification have to remain.So I think what the president is going to be talking about is the logic of the compromise we have, and I think we're also going to be asking senators, what's your alternative?Because at this point, if this bill doesn't pass, there will be no bill. And that's going to keep us in the current status quo, which I think almost everybody believes is simply not acceptable.
Tavis: Our viewers know that on June 28th, I have the honor of moderating a presidential forum featuring all the Democrats running for the White House.I'll do the same thing for Republicans come September.One of the issues I hope to raise in that conversation where immigration is concerned is why the issue - this wet foot-dry foot policy.
The issue of Haitian immigrants being turned away while we allow Cubans to come in the country.There's been a lot of consternation, as you well know, for years about this very issue.I was just reading an article the other day, Jesse Jackson, for example, raised this issue when he ran for president in '84.And yet while we push this immigration reform package through, there is no consideration for how we're going to readdress the policy of how we treat these Haitians who are turned back and left to die on the waters at best, or at worst taking their chances of surviving the waters; at worst returning back to a country where they are killed.
Why is that issue of the wet foot-dry foot policy, Haitians vs. Cubans, not on the table as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package?
Chertoff: Well, the normal policy, of course, is that when people try to get into the country illegally, we consider whether they have a real asylum claim.If they have an asylum claim, then they have an opportunity to be a refugee.But in most cases, when they don't have an asylum claim, they're returned to their country of origin.
The Cuban situation is a little different because it reflects the fact that we don't have relations with Cuba.And the Cubans have put restrictions on our ability to return people once they hit dry land.Of course, when we do intercept Cubans on the open seas, we do return them to Cuba.They are not permitted into the United States unless they can make an individualized case for asylum.So I don't think the asymmetry is a reflection, necessarily, of something insidious in our policy.It reflects, frankly, a different state of relations with Cuba.
Tavis: When we see, though - two things right quick, and I'll move on.First of all, the case that we all know, famously, of a few years ago, Elian Gonzalez, did not make it on land.As we all know, a fisherman went out on the water, brought him on the land, and yet the U.S. Congress, controlled by Republicans at that time, tried to make him, offer him citizenship.So that seems to not square with the answer you've just offered, number one.
Chertoff: Well actually, the rule is - it's the point of our interception. If somebody sneaks in and gets on land because a private person helps them, that qualifies as a so-called dry foot.So it's a question of when we intercept them, not what private parties do.
Tavis: One last question on this, then.So I hear your point about the difference between Cuba and Haiti.We could debate that off-air for hours, ad infinitum, in fact.We won't do that - or ad nauseum.That said, though, when we know what happens to these persons when they return back to their country, we're still justified in sending them back?
Chertoff: Well, I recognize, Tavis, that you have people all over the world who are facing lives at home in poverty, sickness.We can't make the United States a haven for everybody, because a good deal of the world would move to the United States and we wouldn't have the ability to manage that kind of a process or to provide the services or to employ all those people.
So we do have a set of rules about asylum.If you are being persecuted for your social group or your political views, then you do have an opportunity to become a refugee.But the fact that there is in Haiti now a distressing social situation in general doesn't normally qualify for asylum, and that's a standard we generally apply around the world.
Tavis: All right, we won't solve that issue here tonight.We'll come back to it maybe at a later time.Let me advance now to another issue that I know concerns many African Americans, and I think quite frankly Americans of all good conscience.We just, on this program two weeks ago, did a whole weeklong series, Mr. Secretary, featuring the stories of persons in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans trying to exercise their right to return.
Tell me what you can about what we're prepared to do.FEMA, of course, reports up to you.How prepared are we for this hurricane season?Can you assure me that what we saw happen in New Orleans will never, ever happen in America again?
Chertoff: Well, this is a responsibility, of course, that remains with all levels of government - local, state, and federal.At the federal level, what we've done is we've built capabilities and plans that we never had before in the history of FEMA or any other government department.So we're much readier now than we were two years ago and even readier than we were last year.
At the state and local level, we have worked very closely with the community in New Orleans and in Louisiana.Frankly, we've done more specific planning with those communities than we've ever done, or that we do with other states and localities, because we recognize the distress.What's going to be critical here though is the citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas are going to have to listen when a request is made that they evacuate.
People who wait and decide they're going to ride it out are going to put themselves in jeopardy, and they're going to put first responders in jeopardy, and that's the most important take-away message I can send to people who are living in New Orleans today.
Tavis: One side of the equation that you just suggested is that people have to evacuate when they're told to evacuate to the best that they can.As you well know, not everybody in New Orleans had the capacity, the ability, to evacuate, which raises again the other side of the question I want to come back to as an exit question; whether or not you can assure the American people tonight that FEMA, the leadership from the top on down, is now prepared to do what the American people expect in an emergency like this, and what we saw then will never happen again.
Chertoff: Well, Tavis, FEMA is prepared and has a brand new leadership and a very experienced leadership from the top all the way down, and a very professionalized leadership.And specifically to the question of those who can't evacuate themselves, because honestly, that is the group we most worry about, let me tell you the two things we've done.
We've insisted that there be a very specific plan with respect to nursing homes and hospitals to make sure that in advance of a hurricane hitting the area, they have contracts in place to move the people who need to be moved, and those who cannot be moved are put in a place where they are safe, where there is power and security and food and water. That was not a plan that existed in 2005.
The second piece of this is the city of New Orleans has, for the first time last year, created a bus evacuation plan that has local buses going around, picking people up, taking them to a staging area, and then we have worked with the state to arrange contracts to make sure there is bus and air transportation to take them away.
Again, this had never been done prior to 2005, and that's why in the face of that unprecedented catastrophe, people found themselves improvising to create a plan that had never been written up.
Tavis: Secretary Chertoff, you're kind to come on and to answer our questions.I'm delighted to have you here joining us tonight from Washington. All the best to you.We'll talk again soon, I hope.
Chertoff: I hope so too, Tavis.
Tavis: Thank you, sir.
Back to June 12, 2007